This one was made in 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay just unearthed by zombietime (a blog that has been republishing excerpts of his past writings).

here

pp: Ramon: "…We didn’t deny climate change, we denied that it was caused by……

Obama Science Czar Advocated Seizing Babies Born to Unwed Women if They Refuse to Get an Abortion in 1970′s Textbook….

Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook that “illegitimate children” born to unwed mothers could be taken by the government and put up for adoption if the mother refused to have an abortion.

Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, argued that “illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged” as a socioeconomic measure imposed to control population growth.

….On page 786, the authors wrote that one way to discourage illegitimate childbearing “might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption – especially those born to minors who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone.”

Alternatively, the authors suggested unwed mothers might place their babies up for adoption, writing: “If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it.”

New York Times: Holdren’s Ice Age Tidal Wave

As a long-time student of John P. Holdren’s gloomy visions of the future, like his warnings about global famines and resource shortages, I can’t resist passing along another one that has just been dug up. This one was made in 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay just unearthed by zombietime (a blog that has been republishing excerpts of his past writings). In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.

See, that’s where punters get confused. The scientific method is about consensus, but it’s a consensus among experts which arises after an often very messy factual debate. It isn’t a consensus that arises among inexpert blog commenters, some of them who are, let’s say, jazz guitarists — just to pick a purely arbitrary and random example. Evolution is probably the best example of this kind of mix up. The fundamentals are pretty much “settled” in that area of biology, and most biologists accept that, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing revolutionary left to find there. What it does mean is that your data better be rock-solid and buttoned up before you start challenging fundamentals which have been proven over and over again for well over a century.

Conversely, if you are going to go around claiming that the sky is (literally) falling and we have to radically change our society immediately or we will all die, your data had better have a lot of depth with a significant history of confirmed data points before we start taking actions which we know will result in a predictably large amount of human misery. But if what you’ve got to go on is heavily weighted by predictive data you’ve gotten from your Oregon Trail-based computer model, I’m going to have to ask you to show me a little bit more than that before I get on board with your theory.